Reminder: California Minimum Wage Going Up 1/1/2016

There are so many new laws and rules going into effect that one obvious one may slip through the cracks.  The minimum wage in California is going up on January 1, 2016 to $10.00 per hour.   It says so right here on the old Minimum Wage Notice that has been around for a couple of years now. (HERE).

Because of the minimum wage increase, the California minimum salary for exempt "white collar" employees will increase to $3,466.6667 per month or $41,600 annually.  Also, those of you relying on the inside sales exemption (requiring minimum compensation of 1.5X minimum wage, take note that your employees will have to make at least $15.00 / hour).  

There are other wages pegged to minimum wage as well, but my boundless generosity is limited by time this morning. So, please consult with your attorneys, read your wage orders and labor code, and enjoy time with family and friends this holiday season. 

Best wishes for a safe and enjoyable holiday, and Merry Christmas.

Greg

 

IRS Lowers Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rates for 2016

Effective 1/1/2016, the IRS is lowering the standard mileage reimbursement rates, probably because of falling gasoline prices.  Most businesses reimburse employee's business use of their personal automobiles at the IRS rate. That rate will be going down from $0.575 to $0.54 on January 1, 2016.

Here is the text of the announcement, which is linked here.  Happy Festivus.

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2016 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2016, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

• 54 cents per mile for business miles driven, down from 57.5 cents for 2015
• 19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes, down from 23 cents for 2015
• 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

The business mileage rate decreased 3.5 cents per mile and the medical, and moving expense rates decrease 4 cents per mile from the 2015 rates. The charitable rate is based on statute.

The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs.

Taxpayers always have the option of calculating the actual costs of using their vehicle rather than using the standard mileage rates.

A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) or after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle. In addition, the business standard mileage rate cannot be used for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.

These and other requirements for a taxpayer to use a standard mileage rate to calculate the amount of a deductible business, moving, medical or charitable expense are in Rev. Proc. 2010-51.  Notice 2016-01 contains the standard mileage rates, the amount a taxpayer must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that a taxpayer may use in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate plan.

U.S. Supremes Enforce Arbitration Agreement, Reversing California Appellate Court

The U.S. Supreme Court in Direct TV Inc. v. Imburgia (opinion here) took on the California Court of Appeal in a test of the Federal Arbitration Act's preemptive force. Guess who won?

This case involves Direct TV's attempt to include a class-action waiver in an arbitration agreement as part of its service contract with customers.  Before the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333 (2011), ruled that such waivers were valid under the Federal Arbitration Act, state courts (like California's) could invalidate class actions waivers as "unconscionable" or invalid against public policy. See Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148 (2005).

So, Direct TV inserted a provision in its arbitration agreement that hedged against the possibility of invalidation by a state court, as explained by the Supreme Court in its opinion:

if the “law of your state” makes the waiver of class arbitration unenforceable, then the entire arbitration provision “is unenforceable.” Id., at 129. Section 10 of the contract states that §9, the arbitration provision, “shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.”

This way, if California held that a class waiver is invalid, the whole case (class action and all) would be heard in court. 

Then, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that preempted California law invalidating class-action waivers.  Even the California Supreme Court had to agree that if the Federal Arbitration Act applies, class action waivers in arbitration agreements are OK.  Therefore, one might say, the "law of the state" about class-waivers was gone.  What happened to this clause then? Well that's what this case is about.

The Court of Appeal interpreted the above language to say that the "state law" would continue to apply without regard to federal preemption.  That is, the "law of your state" would continue to prohibit class action waivers under this agreement, despite the preemption of the law by the Supreme Court.  And, despite the arbitration agreement's specific provision that the Federal Arbitration Act applies. 

6-3, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal's decision.  The Court decided that for the Court of Appeal to be correct, the term "law of your state" had to include "invalid" state law.  The Court then decided that the Court of Appeal would never have interpreted the term "law of your state" to include "invalid" state law unless this contract were an arbitration agreement. Therefore, because the Court of Appeal disfavored arbitration agreements, its decision violated the Federal Arbitration Act. 

nothing in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning suggests that a California court would reach the same interpretation of “law of your state” in any context other than arbitration. The Court of Appeal did not explain why parties might generally intend the words “law of your state” to encompass “invalid law of your state.” To the contrary, the contract refers to “state law” that makes the waiver of class arbitration “unenforceable,” while an in- valid state law would not make a contractual provision unenforceable. Assuming—as we must—that the court’s reasoning is a correct statement as to the meaning of “law of your state” in this arbitration provision, we can find nothing in that opinion (nor in any other California case) suggesting that California would generally interpret words such as “law of your state” to include state laws held invalid because they conflict with, say, federal labor statutes, federal pension statutes, federal antidiscrimination laws, the Equal Protection Clause, or the like. 

And as for disfavoring arbitration:

The view that state law retains independent force even after it has been authoritatively invalidated by this Court is one courts are unlikely to accept as a general matter and to apply in other contexts.

Justice Thomas believes the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt any case brought in state court and would have affirmed the court of appeal. So he dissented on that special ground. 

Justices Ginsburg (writing) joined by Justice Sotomayor dissented on the merits, arguing that  Direct TV should be held to its original intent: to enforce the agreement only if state law (without regard to federal preemption) would allow the class waiver. The agreement was written before the Supreme Court ruled class action waivers were allowed and state laws to the contrary were preempted; therefore, the agreement's intent was not to include federal law in the mix.  

So, another anti-arbitration case goes by the wayside. But California's anti-arbitration case law remains on the books and strong because Armendariz and its progeny are still in force.  Therefore, it remains important to draft arbitration agreements in employment settings carefully. 

California Court of Appeal Drives a Truck Through Federal Arbitration Act's Class Action Waiver Rule

If the Federal Arbitration Act applies, and it does to most employer-employee relationships, then it's settled that arbitration agreements may be limited to individual claims only.  That is, a class action waiver is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.  And a silent agreement is considered to be limited to individual claims only.

What if the Federal Arbitration Act doesn't apply?  Then California law takes over.  And when California law applies, then California courts' deep abiding love for arbitration comes into play.
I kid.

The question then, is when the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply. One example is that the Act itself exempts:  “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”  At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "workers engaged in commerce" was limited to transportation-type workers, not everyone in business. 

The U.S. Supremes have not yet decided what is a transportation-type worker.  Is it anyone who drives a truck  or vehicle across state lines as part of the job?  Or is it someone who is in the trucking business like a mover, bus driver, UPS, etc.?   

Well, that's what the Court of Appeal decided in Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP.  

It seems Garrido filed a class action in state court, but signed an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. The agreement stated that the Federal Arbitration Act applied. But the superior court refused to enforce the class action waiver, even so.  That is because the trial court decided that even under the FAA the agreement would be invalid.  Of course, the trial court was wrong. if the FAA applied, the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court both have held that a class action waiver is valid and enforceable. 

But the Court of Appeal decided that the FAA did not apply because Garrido's arbitration agreement was not covered by the FAA, as he was a "worker engaged in interstate commerce" by virtue of his job as a truck driver.    

Garrido’ s duty as a truck driver was the transportation of goods. Air Liquide cites to no authority holding that a truck driver whose responsibility is to move products across state lines does not fall under section 1 of the FAA. The fact that Garrido transported Air Liquide’s own products (rather than those of an Air Liquide client) is of little consequence: “a trucker is a transportation worker regardless of whether he transports his employer’s goods or the goods of a third party; if he crosses state lines he is ‘actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.’” (International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast, LLC (7th Cir. 2012) 702 F.3d 954, 957.)

Thus, because Garrido was a transportation worker, the FAA does not apply to the ADR agreement.

Once the FAA did not apply, then the issue was whether the class waiver was enforceable.  Without FAA preemption, the California case law is anti-class action waivers. The courts will invalidate class action waivers under Gentry v. Superior Court by applying a four-factor test:

In finding the ADR agreement’s class waiver provision unenforceable, the trial court applied Gentry’s four-factor test. As noted above, these four factors are: “[1] the modest size of the potential individual recovery, [2] the potential for retaliation against members of the class, [3] the fact that absent members of the class may be ill informed about their rights, and [4] other real world obstacles to the vindication of class members’ rights to overtime pay through individual arbitration.” (Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 453, 463.) Under Gentry, if the trial court “concludes, based on these factors, that a class arbitration is likely to be a significantly more effective practical means of vindicating the rights of the affected employees than individual litigation or arbitration, and finds that the disallowance of the class action will likely lead to a less comprehensive enforcement of overtime laws for the employees alleged to be affected by the employer’s violations, it must invalidate the class arbitration waiver to ensure that these employees can ‘vindicate [their] unwaivable rights in an arbitration forum.’” (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly applied that standard to hold that Garrido could maintain his class action in court because his class action waiver was unenforceable under California law. 

In this trucking case, there's little the employer could do. But if you are drafting an arbitration agreement or compelling arbitration, do your best to make sure the FAA applies.... or this could happen to you.

This opinion in Garrido is here. 

 

Court of Appeal: Two Attorney's Fees Statutes Could Mean Offsetting Awards

So, let's say the plaintiff wins at trial on an Equal Pay Act claim under California law. But the defendant wins a verdict on a claim for unpaid wages. The Equal Pay Act claim permits recovery of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 1197.5.  But Labor Code section 218.5 allows recovery of attorney's fees by the prevailing party.  Who gets attorney's fees?

The trial court awarded the plaintiff her fees on the Equal Pay Act claim, but only a fraction of what she claimed entitlement to.  She had only spent a portion of her time on the EPA part of the case, after all.

The trial court also awarded the defendant its fees on the wage-hour claim.  The net recovery by the Plaintiff was about $4,000.  That probably wasn't what the plaintiff's lawyer had in mind when he signed up for the case. So, the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision.

when there are two fee shifting statutes in separate causes of action, there can be a prevailing party for one cause of action and a different prevailing party for the other cause of action. 

Why?

if plaintiff had brought her wage and Equal Pay Act claims in separate actions, defendant would have been entitled to recover its attorney fees in the action asserting the wage claim and plaintiff would have been entitled to recover her attorney fees in the action asserting the Equal Pay Act claim. There is no legal or logical reason why defendant should be precluded from recovering its attorney fees on plaintiff’s wage claim simply because plaintiff combined her wage and Equal Pay Act claims in a single action. By providing that the prevailing party under one statute is entitled to fees, and that a different prevailing party under another statute is entitled to fees, the Legislature expressed an intent that there can be two different prevailing parties under separate statutes in the same action. Thus, a net monetary award to a party does not determine the prevailing party when there are two fee shifting statutes involved in one action

As such, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that her prevailing on just one of the claims meant she was the "prevailing party" in the lawsuit, precluding the defendant from recovering its fees on the claims on which it had prevailed.

Makes sense, right?  So,this is a great case for employers seeking leverage in settlement negotiations when there are multiple fee-shifting statutes involved. But there is one little wrinkle.

Labor Code section 218.5 was amended in 2013 to say that defendants do not recover attorneys fees anymore under that statute unless the plaintiff brought the wage claim "in bad faith." And that's a tough standard.  So, it may be that 218.5 will rarely result in a fee award to a prevailing defendant going forward.

This case is Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Two Recent California Employment Law Decisions of Note

I know I haven't been blogging as much lately. I don't want to let you three readers down.
I'll try to do better.  Sometimes I think this blog has run its course, but then I get a meaningful piece of hate mail and my faith is restored.

Don't worry, you can catch up on all of the year's significant decisions at our upcoming legal update, which you can attend in person or via a convenient webinar.

Here are two recent employment law opinions of note, briefly summarized -

Class Action - No Precertification Discovery to Find New Plaintiff When Original Plaintiff Had No Case.

The plaintiff alleged that CVS has a policy under which it automatically terminates employment of those who perform no work for 45 consecutive days.  (It seems unlikely that such a policy would exist without containing any exceptions, given the need for FMLA/ CFRA / PDL leave).

The problem is that the plaintiff herself did not miss 45 days of work and was not fired under that policy. She was dismissed for lack of standing.

But the plaintiff's attorneys tried to obtain discovery of all the names and addresses of everyone fired under the alleged policy, despite the lack of a viable client.

There is case law allowing the search for a new plaintiff in class action cases, but only when the original plaintiff had some sort of viable case.  Here, the court of appeal was having none of it:

Deluca was never a member of the class she sought to represent. She does not claim a disability and CVS did not terminate her. We are hard pressed to explain why the trial court stated it “does not find that Deluca or her counsel had no reasonable, good faith belief that she lacked standing when the suit was initiated.”  * * * *

Class actions rest on considerations of equity and justice. Based on the facts before us, and applying the Parris test, we find the actual or potential abuse of the class action procedure outweighs the potential benefits that might be gained. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the proposed precertification discovery.

This case is CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.


Retaliation Claims Under Lab. Code Section 1102.5(b) Are Independent from Common Law Wrongful Termination (Tameny) Claims

The plaintiff in Cardenas v. Fanaian, DDS was a nurse who lost her wedding ring at work.   She filed a police report. The dentist / practice owner objected and fired the nurse. She sued under Labor Code section 1102.5, which prohibits retaliation against employees who report illegal conduct to law enforcement.  She also sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.   The jury awarded her damages.

On appeal, the defense lawyers mishandled the arguments according to the court of appeal. However, the court decided NOT to rule on the applicability of the wrongful termination claim.  There was a good argument that her "complaint" that someone stole her ring was not a "public" policy issue.

On the statutory claim, though, you can't fire someone for going to the police about a co-worker:

The special verdict findings bring this case squarely within the parameters of section 1102.5. The jury determined that Cardenas reported a workplace theft of her property to the police. Theft is a violation of the law. (Pen. Code, § 484.) The jury found that she was subsequently terminated from her employment and that her report to the police was a motivating reason for her termination. Thus, she engaged in protected activity, was subjected to an adverse employment action and there was a causal link between the two. (McVeigh, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.) She met all of the statutory elements of a claim under section 1102.5. She was not required to prove anything more.

So, this case is significant because section 1102.5 does not require reports about the employer's wrongdoing pertaining to business issues.  Rather, the law prohibits retaliation even if the employee makes a report to the government about something entirely unrelated to the employer.

The opinion in Cardenas v. Fanaian is here.

CA Governor Signs New Equal Pay Law

The California Legislature has turned its attention to anti-discrimination law: equal pay.  Now, who is against equal pay?  If you raised your hand, you violated at least four laws that already existed before Jerry Brown signed SB 358 (text is here).  Four laws?   At least.

1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow employers to set pay based on sex (or race or other protected criteria). So, if a restaurant employer paid female servers  $0.50 per hour less than male servers, that would violate Title VII absent a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason."  The workers must be "similarly situated."

2. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act is analogous to Title VII.

3.  The federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (here)  (yes, enacted a year earlier than Title VII) provides:

(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

4. And the California Labor Code, section 1197.5  already says:

1197.5. (a) No employer shall pay any individual in the employer's employ at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex.

That said, and dissatisfied with the "wage gap" that exists between the wages earned by all men and all women in all jobs (which has nothing to do with the equal pay laws), the Legislature has  modified section 1197.5, intending to strengthen it.

Here is the text of the new law's equal pay provisions:

1197.5. (a) An employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates: 

(1) The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
  (A) A seniority system.
  (B) A merit system.
  (C) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.
  (D) A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, “business necessity” means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.
(2) Each factor relied upon is applied reasonably.
(3) The one or more factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential.

The key changes are:

- "substantially similar" work rather than equal work.  What does "views as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility" mean?  This will be the subject of litigation. 

- the employee need not compare herself to others only within the same location, but may look to other job sites.  This change likely expands the new law beyond all four laws discussed above. When employers have multiple facilities and pay different rates based on location, this section could result in claims of pay disparity.  It is still lawful to do pay geographic differentials as far as I know. But employers will have to ensure that wage differentials based on geography are applied equally and do not create sex-based disparities.

-  the employer has to prove that wage disparities based on factors "other than sex, such as education, training or experience" are job-related, consistent with business necessity, and that the employee cannot prove a less discriminatory alternative.

- the court / jury gets to decide if the employer's reason for wage disparities are "reasonable."  

- the employer must prove the entire wage disparity is due to one or more of the defenses.

Other major changes:

 - Recordkeeping under this section goes from 2 years to 3.

-  It is already the law (in the Labor Code, even) that an employer cannot prohibit an employee from disclosing her own wages or discussing wages at work.  But this new law prohibits employers from preventing employees from "inquiring about another employee's wages" or "aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under this section."  However, the new law says that it does not require anyone, including the employer, to disclose others' wages.  There is no exception for payroll or HR workers who may "discuss the wages of others" under this new law.  So, can the payroll manager chat with Sally about Bob's pay?  It also will be interesting to see if this law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which also covers this area. 

- New private rights of action and remedies for violations. However, these existed in one form or another under the old laws as well.

Effective date and final thoughts:

This law takes effect on January 1, 2016.

Employers will have to revise payroll and confidentiality policies before then. It will also serve employers well do analyze compensation systems to ensure that wage disparities are justified in accordance with the defenses stated above.

Oh, and this law will do little to nothing to address the "wage gap" that you may have read about, or heard Patricia Arquette discuss at the Oscars.  That wage gap is a function of the average wage paid to women for all jobs compared with the average wage paid to men.   It's not a comparison of men and women doing the same job for the same employer.

If the politicians want to pass a law to address the overall wage gap and stop using it as a political talking point, they can do so.  But they will have to pass a law that sets wages for male-dominated occupations lower, set wages for female-dominated occupations higher,  and/or somehow balance the mix of males and females in each job category.  I have to go now.  I have an appointment in Room 101.

Finally finally, I think the law actually has a typo in it.  The usual way one refers to the commencement of the statute of limitations is when the cause of action "accrues."   This law reads, at least on the internet, and as of right now:

A civil action to recover wages under subdivision (a) may be commenced no later than two years after the cause of action occurs.

(emphasis mine).  I make typos too.  But I don't pass landmark legislation that affects millions of Californians.

California Health Care Industry Meal Period Waivers Are Back

Governor Jerry Brown just signed SB 327 (text here).  This bill overturns a court of appeal opinion that was going to significantly affect the health care industry and its meal break scheduling practices. That decision, Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 285, is on review to the California Supreme Court. It may be moot now.  And yes, the issue applies only to the health care industry (hospitals, nursing homes, etc.).  Everyone else, go back to your Facebook.

Here's the deal.  Wage Order 5 is the industry order that applies to the health care industry.  That Wage Order contains a special provision allowing health care workers to waive one or the other of their two meal periods when they are scheduled to work > 10 hour shifts.  That provision is section 11(D):

Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, employees in the health care industry who work shifts in excess of eight (8) total hours in a workday may voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods. In order to be valid, any such waiver must be documented in a written agreement that is voluntarily signed by both the employee and the employer. The employee may revoke the waiver at any time by providing the employer at least one day’s written notice. The employee shall be fully compensated for all working time, including any on-the-job meal period, while such a waiver is in effect.

Seems pretty straightforward, right?  The intent is to allow those health care workers who have 3 X 12 hour shifts or 4X 10 hour shifts (which are common) to have only one meal period so they can go home to their families a half hour earlier.

But Gerard, cited above, held that section 11(D) was not valid.  That's because Gerard held that Labor Code 516 invalidated section 11(D) because section 516 is a statute that says that the Wage Orders have to be at least as generous as section 512. And section 512 does not permit waiver of either one of two meal periods by health care workers.

Confused?  So were employment lawyers, hospitals and everyone except three judges in Gerard.  Not to worry, Gerard is no more.   Because the Legislature amended section 516, thusly:

(a) Except as provided in Section 512, the Industrial Welfare Commission may adopt or amend working condition orders with respect to break periods, meal periods, and days of rest for any workers in California consistent with the health and welfare of those workers.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), or any other law, including Section 512, the health care employee meal period waiver provisions in Section 11(D) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 4 and 5 were valid and enforceable on and after October 1, 2000, and continue to be valid and enforceable. This subdivision is declarative of, and clarifies, existing law. 

So, under (b), section 11(D) was is and will be valid.  That means the plaintiff in Gerard probably will lose this case at the Supreme Court, and all will be well in health care once again.

This is an urgency statute, meaning it takes effect immediately.

CA Governor Signs AB 1506, a Bill Granting Limited PAGA Relief Re Wage Statements

Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1506 (text here), which amends the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA.

This law affects only PAGA claims that are based on defective wage statement claims asserting violations of Labor Code section 226. And only those claims were the alleged defects are that the employer does not include on the wage statement:

(6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, 

(8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer

So, a PAGA claim based on those two criteria may be avoided if the employer "cures" the defect upon receiving notice from the employee.   How do you cure?

A violation of paragraph (6) or (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 226 shall only be considered cured upon a showing that the employer has provided a fully compliant, itemized wage statement to each aggrieved employee for each pay period for the three-year period prior to the date of the written notice sent pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 2699.3.

So, to "cure" you just have to re-do your wage statements for three years and re-issue them to all employees who received the defective ones.   It also means that the "aggrieved employees" must be "made whole," but it's unclear what that means unless someone has suffered some harm because the proper weeks or employer name were not listed on the wage statement.

The cure must occur after the employer receives notice of a PAGA claim within the 33 day period before the employee can file a lawsuit. If the employee claims the employer has not cured the defect, the employee may appeal to the DLSE. The DLSE has 17 days to rule on whether or not the defect was cured.  If not, the employer has three more days to cure.  If the employee still disagrees, he may appeal to the superior court.  If the DLSE finds the the employer did not cure, then the employee may file suit.

So, this is a very minor amendment to PAGA, but one that may help employers avoid an expensive claim in limited circumstances.

This is an "urgency" measure, which means it takes effect right away. Stay tuned for explanations of some of the other legislation that will take effect in January.

NLRB's "Joint Employer" Case Matters to Non-Union Employers, Too

As you may have read, the NLRB has changed its definition of what is a "joint employer" relationship.  In the labor law context, this may come up, for example, when the Board decides what is an appropriate unit for bargaining or voting.  Additionally, a joint employer may have to bargain alongside its co-employer about the employment conditions under its "joint" control. Joint employers also can be jointly liable for unfair labor practice decisions and more. 

Before you decide this is "union stuff" and irrelevant, remember that courts may use the "joint employer" doctrine to impose liability on one company for the discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.  perpetrated by employees of another company.  The standards for transferring liability between separate companies (single employer, integrated enterprise, alter ego, joint employer) are influenced by NLRB decisional law.   So, this case could affect other areas of the law unrelated to union stuff.  Plus, the NLRB's reach continues to expand. Sooner or later, it is going to create more private-sector unionization unless the current trend is reversed. So, it pays to pay attention.

"Joint" employer is when there are two separate entities, owned and managed by different enterprises. But they both exercise sufficient control over a group of workers that they are considered "jointly" responsible for issues that arise.  A "single" employer or "integrated enterprise" on the other hand, usually refers to when there are related entities, like parents and subsidiaries, that are deemed one enterprise.  An "alter ego" is when one entity pretends to be unrelated to another, usually to disguise itself and avoid liability.

Joint employer relationships often come up in the context of temporary agencies, or when an employer subcontracts some of its work to a separate company, such as cleaning.  

In the case under consideration, Browning-Ferris Industries operated a recycling plant.  They employed their own employees, who operated forklifts, loaders and other equipment.   Inside the facility, there are a series of conveyor belts that sort the recycled materials.  BFI hired another company, Leadpoint, to staff the conveyor belts.  The Leadpoint workers cleaned the facility, sorted the materials and performed other work.  A union sought to represent the Leadpoint workers. The same union already represented the BFI employees mentioned above.   

BFI and Leadpoint had a written agreement, under which Leadpoint was the employer of its workers. Here are some of the provisions:

• Leadpoint had its own supervisors and managers on site.
• Leadpoint management scheduled its workers
• Leadpoint evaluated its own employees' work.
• Leadpoint had its own HR manager on site.
• Leadpoint made all hiring decisions, but BFI provided criteria / job qualifications
• BFI imposed hiring criteria including a drug panel and skills test
• Leadpoint made all discipline and termination decisions, although BFI requested a couple of discharges after catching Leadpoint employees engaged in misconduct at the facility.
• Leadpoint set pay rates with employees, but BFI's agreement provided the maximum it would reimburse Leadpoint.
• BFI set the hours of operation of the plant and the shift times. But Leadpoint scheduled the employees.

The Board undertook an historical analysis of the joint employer test. It found that the Board over the years had narrowed the test to exclude many relationships that were "joint employers" under older Board and case law.   The Board then announced its "new" rule, which it argues is really a "return" to the old rule:

The Board may find that two or more entities are joint employers  of a single work force if they are both employers within the meaning of the common law, and if they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating the allocation and exercise of control in the workplace, we will consider the various ways in which joint employers may “share” control over terms and conditions of employment or “codetermine” them, as the Board and the courts have done in the past

So, there are two prongs.  First, what is "employer within the meaning of the common law?"   The Board quoted from the Restatement of Agency:

a servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control.

The Board emphasized that, going forward, it would merely look to the "right" to control, rather than the exercise of control.  So, BFI owns the equipment, sets the starting and ending times, and has its own quality and management standards in play in its own plant.  Does BFI always have the "right" to control its own property and, therefore, the sub's employees to one degree or another?  Probably yes, right?  I think that's the way the Board wants it.    Am I just trying to scare you?  Nope. From the opinion:

The common law, indeed, recognizes that control may be indirect . For example, the Restatement of Agency (Second) §220, comment l (“Control of the premises”) observes that

[i]f the work is done upon the premises of the employer with his machinery by workmen who agree to obey general rules for the regulation of the conduct of employees, the inference is strong that such workmen are the servants of the owner... and illustrates this principle by citing the example of a coal mine owner employing miners who, in turn, supply their own helpers. Both the miners and their helpers are servants of the mine owner.

So, that is the outer limit of what an employee is, but it's not enough to ensure joint employer status. Hence the second prong: "share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment." Here, the Board decided to return to prior case law that expanded the list of criteria it considers relevant to "share or codetermine." 

Essential terms indisputably include wages and hours, as reflected in the Act itself.82 Other examples of control over mandatory terms and conditions of employment found probative by the Board include dictating the number of workers to be supplied;83 controlling scheduling,84 seniority, and overtime; 85 and assigning work and determining the manner and method of work performance

The Board overruled at least four decisions "and others" that conflict with its new standard.  

Then, the Board turned to BFI and found, yes, it is a joint employer with Leadpoint.  

• Re hiring, BFI required drug testing, asked Leadpoint not to hire those BFI previously employed and deemed ineligible, and BFI could reject anyone brought to its premises.  

• Re discipline and termination, BFI could report to Leadpoint employees whom BFI felt should be disciplined or discharged.

• Re working conditions, BFI had the right to control its conveyor belt, including the speed at which it operated.  BFI held meetings with Leadpoint employees to provide feedback and training.  And because BFI set the shift times and decided how many workers were needed to staff the plant, those were indirect indicia of control. 

• Re wages:

Under the parties’ contract,  Leadpoint determines employees’ pay rates, administers all payments, retains payroll records, and is solely responsible for providing and administering benefits. But BFI specifically prevents Leadpoint from paying employees more than BFI employees performing comparable work.111 BFI’s employment of its own sorter at $5 more an hour creates a de facto wage ceiling for Leadpoint workers. In addition, BFI and Leadpoint are parties to a cost-plus contract, under which BFI is required to reimburse Leadpoint for labor costs plus a specified percentage markup.112 Although this arrangement, on its own, is not necessarily sufficient to create a joint-employer relationship,113 it is coupled here with the apparent requirement of BFI approval over employee pay increases.114

The Board's decision is 3-2.  Two Members dissented in an opinion that expressed more than a touch of concern about the affect the majority's decision may have on labor law.  Here are a couple of  excerpts from the beginning of the dissent:

Today, in the most sweeping of recent major decisions, the Board majority rewrites the decades-old test for determining who the “employer” is. More specifically, the majority redefines and expands the test that makes two separate and independent entities a “joint employer” of certain employees. This change will subject countless entities to unprecedented new joint-bargaining obligations that most do not even know they have, to potential joint liability for unfair labor practices and breaches of collective-bargaining agreements, and to economic protest activity, including what have heretofore been unlawful secondary strikes, boycotts, and picketing.

What do you really think, dissenters?

no bargaining table is big enough to seat all of the entities that will be potential joint employers under the majority’s new standards.

But, the majority said that the Board is merely returning to an existing set of precedents, right?

today’s majority holding does not represent a “return to the traditional test used by the Board,” as our colleagues claim even while admitting that the Board has never before described or articulated the test they announce today. Contrary to their characterization, the new joint-employer test fundamentally alters the law applicable to user-supplier, lessor-lessee, parent-subsidiary, contractor-subcontractor, franchisor-franchisee, predecessor-successor, creditor-debtor, and contractor-consumer business relationships under the Act. In addition, because the commerce data applicable to joint employers is combined for jurisdictional purposes,11 the Act’s coverage will extend to small businesses whose separate operations and employees have until now not been subject to Board jurisdiction.

This decision will mean more collective bargaining, and that can't be bad!  Can it?

The Act encourages collective bargaining, but only by  an “employer” in direct relation to its employees. Our colleagues take this purpose way beyond what Congress intended, and the result unavoidably will be too much of a good thing. We believe the majority’s test will actually foster substantial bargaining instability by requiring the nonconsensual presence of too many entities with diverse and conflicting interests on the “employer” side. Indeed, even the commencement of good-faith bargaining may be delayed by disputes over whether the correct “employer” parties are present. This predictable outcome is irreconcilable with the Act’s overriding policy to “eliminate
the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”

The dissent then goes into great detail to explain its reasons for why the new Board decision is so problematic, contrary to the Board's authority, and how it will have unintended consequences.  But I have a day job so I cannot summarize it all here. 

This case likely will be appealed to the court of appeals. So we will see it it is enforced.  The courts are very deferential to board decisions, however. So, the odds are that this is another major shift in labor law.  Or "fundamental transformation" as someone might say.

This case is Browning-Ferris Indus. of Calif. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Incorporation of AAA Rules = Delegation to Arbitrator

In many employment arbitration agreements, the employer provides that the arbitration will be conducted under the employment dispute rules of the American Arbitration Association or AAA.  (The formal name of these rules is the National Rules for Resolution of Employment Disputes.)  Why?  These rules have been upheld as sufficiently benign to employee rights such that arbitration under those rules will be compelled.  And sometimes they're probably just included by default.

The Court of Appeal in Universal Protection Service LP v. Superior Court (opinion here) decided that the parties' arbitration agreement incorporating these rules meant that the arbitrator, rather than the court, had the power to decide whether class-wide arbitration was available.

UP employees sued the company based on wage-hour claims and termination-based claims in a purported class action. The employees sought to arbitrate the class action. UP sought to compel individual claims to arbitration. The trial court ordered the entire claim, class and all to arbitration and stayed the lawsuit, thereby leaving the decision on whether the class was arbitrable to the arbitrator.   UP sought relief from the Court of Appeal via writ of mandate.  UP wanted the appellate court to rule that only individual claims were arbitrable.

Here's what the arbitration clause said:

“I further expressly acknowledge and agree that, to the fullest extent allowed by law, any controversy, claim or dispute between me and the Company . . . relating to or arising out of my employment or the cessation of that employment will be submitted to final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator . . . for determination in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s [AAA] National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes as the exclusive remedy for such controversy, claim or dispute.”

Given that incorporation of AAA rules, the Court of Appeal noted that the AAA employment dispute rules authorize the arbitrator to rule on the scope of the arbitration agreement:

Paragraph No. 6(a) of those rules provides: “The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.”

The Court also noted that the AAA rules include supplemental rules governing purported classwide claims.

“Upon appointment, the arbitrator shall determine as a threshold matter, in a reasoned, partial final award on the construction of the arbitration clause, whether the applicable arbitration clause permits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against a class (the ‘Clause Construction Award’). The arbitrator shall stay all proceedings following the issuance of the Clause Construction Award for a period of at least 30 days to permit any party to move a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or to vacate the Clause Construction Award.”

Having found these provisions were included in the parties' agreement to arbitrate, the Court decided that the Arbitrator had the power to rule on whether the arbitration would include class-based claims.

Employers of course may mandate individual employees to arbitrate their individual claims (excluding PAGA claims).  Employers also may exclude class-based claims from arbitration.   Employers may do so expressly, which is legal.

The parties to an arbitration agreement may agree to have courts rule on arbitrability of class claims or may agree on having an arbitrator do so.  This decision simply says that incorporating the AAA employment rules means that the parties elected the arbitrator as the decider of this critical issue.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

California Supreme Court Upholds California's Tough Arbitration Jurisprudence Again, Mostly

In a non-employment decision, the California Supreme Court held the following:

1.  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion requires the Court to uphold a waiver of class actions in a consumer arbitration agreement (this one within an auto-sales contract). This is not news, as the California Supreme Court already recognized this rule in a prior case, which was decided while this one was pending.

2.  SCOTUS's Concepcion case permits California to continue to apply an "unconscionability" defense to arbitration agreements under state law, provided the courts do not single out arbitration contracts for disfavored treatment.  However, the Court, perhaps subtly, is putting some brakes on how courts may apply the doctrine of "unconscionability" to invalidate arbitration agreements.

This case involved a contract between a consumer and car dealership over the sale of a luxury car. So,  not an employment case. We will have to wait some more for the courts of appeal to apply this decision, Sanchez v. Valencia Holdings LLC, to employment agreements. I think there will be a relaxation of the unconscionability standard, but not enough to allow significant changes to employers' arbitration contracts.

The language of the arbitration agreement is not entirely transferable to employment agreements. But some of the provisions may allow employers to include provisions that previously had been struck down as "unconscionable."

Justice Liu penned the 6-1 opinion.  Justice Liu does not provide a lot of concrete standards for what is going to be considered "unconscionable."  For example, as Justice Chin, concurring and dissenting, points out, the majority simply refuses to announce one formal standard for what counts as "unconscionable."  Does a contract have to "shock the conscience" or must it be simply too one-sided that it's too unfair to the other side?

The standard the court distills is quite mushy and guarantees continued litigation over unconscionability:

The ultimate issue in every case is whether the terms of the contract are sufficiently unfair, in view of all relevant circumstances, that a court should withhold enforcement.

Nevertheless, the Court set forth a definition of unconscionable that appears to signal that courts should not be too eager to strike down terms that they feel are simply unfair:

that unconscionability doctrine is concerned not with ‗a simple old-fashioned bad bargain‘ (Schnuerle v. Insight Communications Co. (Ky. 2012) 376 S.W.3d 561, 575 (Schnuerle)), but with terms that are ‗unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party‘ (8 Williston on Contracts (4th ed. 2010) § 18.10, p. 91). These include ‗terms that impair the integrity of the bargaining process or otherwise contravene the public interest or public policy; terms (usually of an adhesion or boilerplate nature) that attempt to alter in an impermissible manner fundamental duties otherwise imposed by the law, fine-print terms, or provisions that seek to negate the reasonable expectations of the nondrafting party, or unreasonably and unexpectedly harsh terms having to do with price or other central aspects of the transaction.‘ (Ibid.)‖ (Sonic II, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1145.) Because unconscionability is a contract defense, the party asserting the defense bears the burden of proof. (Id. at p. 1148.

* * *

unconscionability requires a substantial degree of unfairness beyond ‘a simple old-fashioned bad bargain.’ (Id. at p. 1160, italics added.) This latter qualification is important. Commerce depends on the enforceability, in most instances, of a duly executed written contract. A party cannot avoid a contractual obligation merely by complaining that the deal, in retrospect, was unfair or a bad bargain. Not all one-sided contract provisions are unconscionable; hence the various intensifiers in our formulations: ―overly harsh,―unduly oppressive,―unreasonably favorable. (See Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 246 [―A contract term is not substantively unconscionable when it merely gives one side a greater benefit . . . .].)

The Court also made clear that it wants to avoid federal intervention be emphasizing that courts may not single out arbitration agreements for more scrutiny than other contracts.

our unconscionability standard is, as it must be, the same for arbitration and nonarbitration agreements. (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. at p. __ [131 S.Ct. at p. 1747].) Of course, unconscionability can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the contract term at issue. (See, e.g., Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 916–917 [choice of law clause]); City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 777 [waivers of liability provision]); Moreno v. Sanchez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1434 [statutes of limitation provision]; Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 491, 495–496 [forum selection clause].) But the application of unconscionability doctrine to an arbitration clause must proceed from general principles that apply to any contract clause. In particular, the standard for substantive unconscionability — the requisite degree of unfairness beyond merely a bad bargain — must be as rigorous and demanding for arbitration clauses as for any contract clause.

Here are a few issues the Court addressed that can help employers' arbitration agreements:

1. The Court made clear that there is no obligation to set an arbitration provision apart from other contractual provisions or call it to the consumer's attention.

2. The Court also does not have lot of sympathy for the argument that the consumer did not read the contract or that it was buried under a lot of other papers, which employees often argue.

3. The Court upheld a provision where the plaintiff could appeal a $0 award to a panel of 3 arbitrators, and the defendant could appeal if the award exceeded $100,000.  Therefore, provisions do not have to be 100% mirror image, which some lower courts have insisted on.

4.  Along the same lines, the Court said that requiring the plaintiff to bear the expenses of the appeal was not unconscionable because the plaintiff did not prove he was unable to bear that cost.  However, this case arose under a different statutory scheme than applies to employment disputes.  So, employers should continue to bear any "type" of cost that is not incurred in court.

5. On the mirror-image "mutuality" issue, the Court said that a provision exempting "self help" such as repossession was OK because of the car dealer's legitimate business needs to repossess cars, and because the agreement exempted small claims cases, which benefited the consumer. Trade-offs, therefore, may save unconscionable provisions.  Caution, though, because the Court in part based its decision on the fact that "self-help" itself is outside of litigation, so it was naturally something that need not be arbitrated.   If the lower courts run with this, employers may be able to "carve out" some issues from arbitration - like intellectual property - if they carve out other claims that favor employees - like expense reimbursements maybe, for example?  We shall see.

To sum up, the Supreme Court upheld the business's agreement. But it did not set forth clear standards on unconscionability. It may have relaxed the law of unconscionability a bit, but it did not hold that Concepcion guts California's (de facto) tough stance on arbitration agreements.

This case is not a blockbuster for employers or employees.  It remains to be seen whether the employer or employee will try for U.S. Supreme Court review.

The court system in California is still under water. It can take a long time to get to trial. Judges are worked hard, and may not give your case the attention you think it deserves.  So, arbitration can be quicker, which can cut down on defense costs.  On the other hand, the cost of the arbitrator and administration can be expensive.  And arbitrators are not afraid to issue large awards when they find cause to do so.  So, arbitration is a yellow light, before and after Sanchez.  Nothing in this case changes that view for me.   Just my 0.02. YMMV.  YOLO.  [Insert cliche].

Sanchez v. Valencia Holdings LLC is here.

Ninth Circuit: Employee Who Threatens to Kill Co-Workers Not "Qualified Individual with Disability"

Timothy Mayo was a welder. He made some specific threats to kill certain supervisors at his employer, PCC Structurals, Inc.  Co-workers complained.  The company sent him home.  The police visited him and he checked into a hospital.  The company terminated his employment.

Mayo sued under Oregon's version of the ADA, which is modeled under the federal statute. The 9th circuit reviewed the employer's successful motion for summary judgment.

The court decided that a person who makes violent threats against co-workers cannot claim protection under disability discrimination laws:

Even if Mayo were disabled (which we assume for this appeal), he cannot show that he was qualified at the time of his discharge. An essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others. See Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002). And while an employee can be qualified despite adverse reactions to stress, he is not qualified when that stress leads him to threaten to kill his co-workers in chilling detail and on multiple occasions (here, at least five times). This vastly disproportionate reaction demonstrated that Mayo could not perform an “essential function” of his job, and was not a “qualified individual.” This is true regardless of whether Mayo’s threats stemmed from his major depressive disorder. Cf. Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Attempting to fire a weapon at individuals is the kind of egregious and criminal conduct which employees are responsible for regardless of any disability.”).

The court was careful to limit its holding to serious threats of violence or harm, in a footnote:

We emphasize that we only address the extreme facts before us in this case: an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence toward his co-workers. We do not suggest that off-handed expressions of frustration or inappropriate jokes necessarily render an employee not qualified. Nor do we imply that employees who are simply rude, gruff, or unpleasant fall in the same category as Mayo. See U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, supra, at *15 (advising that an “anti-social” employee with a “psychiatric disability” can be a “qualified individual,” even if he is “abrupt and rude”).

The court also distinguished its line of cases in which it has excused "conduct resulting from a disability":

This ruling is consistent with our cases holding that “conduct resulting from a disability is considered to be part of the disability, rather than a separate basis for termination.” Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2007); Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2006). Unlike in Humphrey, Gambini, and Dark, we do not need to consider whether PCC has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Mayo, as he has failed to establish a prima facie case at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Only Gambini involved hostile action by the employee.  And the court pointed out that the employer in that case did not argue that Gambini was not a "qualified individual" on appeal.

Summing up, after recognizing the serious problems of mental illness in society, the court remarked:

we disagree with Mayo that employers must simply cross their fingers and hope that violent threats ring hollow. All too often Americans suffer the tragic consequences of disgruntled employees targeting and killing their co-workers. While the ADA and Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce. We thus conclude that PCC’s actions in this case were lawful.

This case is Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc. and the opinion is here. 

U.S. DOL Issues Administrator Interpretation Re Independent Contractors

The U.S. Department of Labor issues "Administrator Interpretations" now instead of opinion letters. In the past, the DOL would respond to individual employers' or  other constituents' questions about an FLSA issue.  The DOL would offer its opinion about the specific situation and disclaim that it broadly applied to other factual contexts, etc.

But in 2010, the DOL started issuing "Administrator Interpretations." These are not tied to any particular request for advice.  Rather, the Wage-Hour Administrator would pick a topic and offer an interpretation of an existing regulation.  Courts do not give these interpretations the same deference as actual regulations. But they are considered.  And the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the practice, discussed here.

With that background, you are ready to read the DOL's latest "Administrator Interpretation."  The agency has weighed in on the test for whether someone is an independent contractor or employee.  As you will see, in Administrator Interpretation 2015-1, the Administrator makes clear the DOL's enforcement position.  Here is the conclusion, verbatim:

In sum, most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions. The very broad definition of employment under the FLSA as “to suffer or permit to work” and the Act’s intended expansive coverage for workers must be considered when applying the economic realities factors to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The factors should not be analyzed mechanically or in a vacuum, and no single factor, including control, should be over-emphasized. Instead, each factor should be considered in light of the ultimate determination of whether the worker is really in business for him or herself (and thus is an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on the employer (and thus is its employee). The factors should be used as guides to answer that ultimate question of economic dependence. The correct classification of workers as employees or independent contractors has critical implications for the legal protections that workers receive, particularly when misclassification occurs in industries employing low wage workers.

(emphasis mine).

The Interpretation reaches that conclusion by analyzing the federal "economic realities" test for whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer (and therefore an employee) or in business for him or herself.  It should be noted that this economic realities test differs from the "right of control" test that California courts use, although there is overlap.  However, the Interpretation opines that the right to control is just one factor and that the economic realities test is actually broader, in that it sweeps more workers into employee status.   That is because, the Interpretation provides, the "economic realities" doctrine explains whom the employer "suffers or permits" to work, which is the definition of "employ" under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Administrator goes through familiar economic realities factors such as:
 - Is the work performed an integral part of the business?  (If so, employee)
 - Does the worker's managerial skill affect his / her opportunity for profit / loss (if so, contractor)
 - What is the nature of the worker's "investment" vs. the employer's investment relative to the work?
 - Does the work require special skill or initiative? (If so, contractor)
 - Is the relationship permanent or indefinite (if so, employee)
 - What is the nature of employer control.

As you will see, the Administrator emphasizes that no one factor is determinative.  The overarching issue is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the worker is in business for him or herself, or is economically dependent on the employer.  However, if the Administrator's views of the test carry the day in court, there will be far fewer independent contractors out there.

The Administrator Interpretation, No. 2015-1 is here. 

California Governor Signs Bill Making Request for Reasonable Accommodation Grounds for Retaliation Claim Under FEHA

The Courts of Appeal have held that an employee's requesting reasonable accommodation is not a "protected activity" for which a retaliation claim will lie under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (See, for example, Rope v. Auto-Chlor, discussed here).  That is because protected activity was (previously) defined as "opposing" some unlawful practice, or participation in an investigation or proceeding involving FEHA-based claims.  A request for accommodation is not "opposing" an unlawful practice, so it did not fall within the previous definition.

Not to worry. The Legislature just added to the list of protected activities an employee's request for accommodation, whether or not it is granted.  So, when an employer denies reasonable accommodation, that was and is separately actionable. Now, the employee likely will assert a retaliation claim as well, claiming that the denial was in retaliation for the employee's making the request.  

May the employer lawfully deny an accommodation because it's not "reasonable" or because the employee is not a "qualified individual," but still be liable for retaliation? We'll see how the courts react.

The new law is AB 987, text here.

Court of Appeal: OK for Employers to Withhold Taxes on Lost Wages Verdict / Settlement

When an employee wins a wrongful termination lawsuit, or settles a case, part or all of the recovery usually will be compensation for lost wages.  After a verdict, though, the court enters a judgment.  Usually interest accrues from the date of the judgment, and continues to accrue unless the judgment is "satisfied."  Additionally, employees may enforce the judgment with collection proceedings.

Employers must withhold taxes from wages, even wages recovered during a lawsuit.  If the employer does so an pays the "net" wage loss, after taxes, is that sufficient to satisfy a judgment?  For years, the answer to that question in California was "no."  At least, that's what one court of appeal had held. The employer would have to "gross up" the amount to include the witthholdings, a significant overpayment, or it would have to pay the gross sum and issue a 1099 to the employee, which could result in under-withholding penalties.

Well, another court of appeal has weighed in, and has now held that employers may satisfy a judgment by paying the net sum, after required tax withholding.

In the current case, Cifuentes recovered lost wages against Costco.  Costco withheld taxes from the recovery and sought a "satisfaction of judgment" ruling from the trial court. The court denied the motion, bound by the prior decision I mentioned, which is Lisec v. United Airlines, Inc. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1500.

Costco appealed, and the court of appeal agreed with Costco that Lisec was wrongly decided.

When Costco paid the judgment, it had two alternatives. It could follow Lisec and risk liability to the IRS and other taxing authorities for the amount of tax it failed to withhold plus penalties. Or it could follow the prevailing federal view and risk a judicial declaration that the judgment is not satisfied. We conclude it chose correctly. Costco's potential exposure for failing to withhold the payroll taxes outweighed the inconvenience to Cifuentes of seeking a refund for the excess withholding.
* * * 
The IRC requires that taxes be withheld from wages because it is the most reliable means of assuring that they are paid. (See Baral v. United States (2000) 528 U.S. 431, 436-437.) By adopting the prevailing federal view, we ensure that California employers who withhold taxes from awards of lost wages are not penalized "for fulfilling [their] legal duty." (Noel, supra, 697 F.3d at p. 212.) Moreover, our decision does not leave plaintiff employees without an adequate remedy. They may seek a refund from the taxing authorities for any amounts withheld in excess of their tax obligation. (Rivera, supra, 430 F.3d at p. 1260.) As observed in Thomas v. County of Fairfax (E.D. Va. 1991) 758 F.Supp. 353, 367, footnote 26, "[c]ourts do not disagree . . . that tax authorities must receive their due, and that neither plaintiffs nor defendants should receive windfalls." 

So, this decision creates a split in the courts of appeal, which could result in California Supreme Court review.  Or the Sixth District could re-examine Lisec.  We will have to see.

In the meantime, this is a good case for justifying withholding taxes whether after trial or as a result of settlement. 

The case is Cifuentes v. Costco Corporation and the opinion is here. 

California Legislature Changes Paid Sick Leave Law, Effective Immediately

Governor Brown signed AB 304 - Here, which amends California's paid sick leave law effective immediately.  Here are the highlights:

Change to Labor Code section 246(a) - clarifies that an eligible employee is one who has worked for the same employer within California for at least 30 days.  The new provision also excludes "retired annuitants" (certain public sector retirees) from the definition of employee.

Change to section 246(b) accrual options. This amendment allows the employer greater flexibility regarding how employees earn the minimum paid sick leave:

(3) An employer may use a different accrual method, other than providing one hour per every 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period.

(4) An employer may satisfy the accrual requirements of this section by providing not less than 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of his or her 120th calendar day of employment.

Change to section 246(e), which allows for PTO or sick policies in effect before January 1, 2015, or other equivalent policies that satisfy the law's requirements.  A grandfathered policy has to have provided at least one day/8 hours of sick leave by the 90th day of employment ad 3 days/24 hours by the ninth month.

But if employers changed their existing policy after January 1, 2015, the grandfathering provision does not apply. Instead, the employer has to comply with the accrual method in section 246(b) or "front load" 3 days of paid sick leave at the beginning of each 12 month period.

(e) An employer is not required to provide additional paid sick days pursuant to this section if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy, the employer makes available an amount of leave applicable to employees that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as specified in this section, and the policy satisfies one of the following:

(1) Satisfies the accrual, carry over, and use requirements of this section.

(2) Provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2015, pursuant to a sick leave policy or paid time off policy that used an accrual method different than providing one hour per 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee, including an employee hired into that class after January 1, 2015, has no less than one day or eight hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off within three months of employment of each calendar year, or each 12-month period, and the employee was eligible to earn at least three days or 24 hours of sick leave or paid time off within nine months of employment. If an employer modifies the accrual method used in the policy it had in place prior to January 1, 2015, the employer shall comply with any accrual method set forth in subdivision (b) or provide the full amount of leave at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. This section does not prohibit the employer from increasing the accrual amount or rate for a class of employees covered by this subdivision.

Section 246(h) allows for employers that grant unlimited vacation / sick leave to include the words "unlimited" on the pay stub to satisfy the wage statement requirement.

Section 246(k) prescribes options for employers to calculate the "pay" for sick leave under this law:

(k) For the purposes of this section, an employer shall calculate paid sick leave using any of the following calculations:

(1) Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek.

(2) Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.

(3) Paid sick time for exempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.

Section 247.5 clarifies that, although employers must keep records of sick leave taken, the employer does not have to inquire why someone took paid time off.   As such, the employer is not liable for failure to accurately keep records when, for example,  it has a PTO policy and the employee does not announce the purpose of the PTO.

Those are the big amendments to the law.  They take effect immediately.  Employers that change their sick leave rules / policies as a result of these amendments should ensure they comply with the appropriate notice requirements!

Be careful out there.

U.S. DOL Proposes Revisions to Some FLSA Exemptions' Minimum Salaries and More

The announcement is only 285 pages, and you can read the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Here.   The actual regulations are about 9 pages beginning on page 286 of the PDF.

I know you're reading headlines focusing on the salary test for exempt workers under the FLSA.   Yes, indeed the DOL proposes to raise that salary threshold for the exempt executive, administrative and artistic / learned professional exemptions.  That proposal is a salary of $921 / week or a minimum salary of $47,892 per year (unless you're in Samoa).  Here's the proposed general provision, a revision to 29 CFR 541.600:

To qualify as an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee under section 13(a)(1) of the Act, an employee must be compensated on a salary basis as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] at a rate per week of not less than $921 (or $774 per week, if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal government), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities. As of [DATE TBD] on each subsequent year, such employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate per week of not less than the updated salary rate published annually by the Secretary in the Federal Register at least 60 days earlier (with the rate for American Samoa to be calculated at 84 percent of the updated salary rate, provided that when the highest industry minimum wage for American Samoa equals the minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1), exempt employees employed in all industries in American Samoa shall be paid the full salary rate), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities.

The proposal includes a way to increase the base salary without passing new regulations or laws. Under the proposal, the minimum salary will go up each year based on an announcement by the Secretary of Labor, to occur 60 days before the change. The change will be based on a calculation the DOL has not decided upon yet.  It will either rely on the "CPI-U" inflation index, or by adjusting the salary basis to maintain pace with actual wages paid to salaried workers.

The proposal retains the "highly compensated" exemption standard, which relaxes the duties test. But the "highly compensated" salary will increase to $122,148, again indexed in future years.

There will also be an hourly "computer exemption" rate of $27.63 for those employees who can otherwise satisfy the "computer" exemption.

The proposed regulations include explanations of how the salary test may be met, as well as language stating that additional hourly pay, bonuses, commissions, etc. above the minimum salary will not defeat the exemptions.

But wait, there's more.  The proposed regulations are all about salary.  But the DOL in its Notice is also "seeking input" on whether to change the "duties" tests for the exemption.  That is, the DOL is actively considering adopting California's standards regarding the white-collar exemption duties test.  California law, as you know, measures time spent on exempt duties and discourages "working managers" who "pitch in."

You don't believe me?  Sure you do. But here's an excerpt of the DOL's announcement regarding the duties test:

While the Department is not proposing specific regulatory changes at this time, the Department is seeking additional information on the duties tests for consideration in the Final Rule. Specifically, the Department seeks comments on the following issues:

A. What, if any, changes should be made to the duties tests?

B. Should employees be required to spend a minimum amount of time performing work that is their primary duty in order to qualify for exemption? If so, what should that minimum amount be?

C. Should the Department look to the State of California’s law (requiring that 50 percent of an employee’s time be spent exclusively on work that is the employee’s primary duty) as a model? Is some other threshold that is less than 50 percent of an employee’s time worked a better indicator of the realities of the workplace today?

D. Does the single standard duties test for each exemption category appropriately distinguish between exempt and nonexempt employees? Should the Department reconsider our decision to eliminate the long/short duties tests structure?

E. Is the concurrent duties regulation for executive employees (allowing the performance of both exempt and nonexempt duties concurrently) working appropriately or does it need to be modified to avoid sweeping nonexempt employees into the exemption? Alternatively, should there be a limitation on the amount of nonexempt work? To what extent are exempt lower-level executive employees performing nonexempt work?

If DOL follows through with this proposal, it will  - not hyperbole - drastically change wage hour law in states outside California. Those of you who know anything about California employment law, you know what will happen. For starters, there will have to be many, many conversions of now-exempt employees to non-exempt, resulting in huge overtime liability going forward, at the new, inflated wages caused by inflated minimum wage law. 

And second, for those employers that do not convert, FLSA collective actions will ensue like you have never seen before.  

These regulations are just a first step and may be revised, particularly based on comments the DOL receives. If you'd like to leave comments, the linked Notice provides instructions:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA11, by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Address written submissions to Mary Ziegler, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Instructions: Please submit only one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions must include the agency name and RIN, identified above, for this rulemaking. Please be advised that comments received will become a matter of public record and will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on the date indicated for consideration in this rulemaking. Commenters should transmit comments early to ensure timely receipt prior to the close of the comment period as the Department continues to experience delays in the receipt of mail in our area. For additional information on submitting comments and the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of this document. For questions concerning the interpretation and enforcement of labor standards related to the FLSA, individuals may contact the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) local district offices (see contact information below). Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

It will be interesting to see if the DOL can issued these regulations before the November 2016 election. If they can't, it will be interesting to see what the new president / DOL secretary says about this issue. 

Stay tuned....

Supreme Court Holds Tax Subsidies Available Under Affordable Care Act to Those Who Buy Insurance on Federal Exchange

Our blog is 9 years old!  Our Firm is, not coincidentally, celebrating its 9th anniversary as well. Thank you for reading!  

To celebrate, I will post about King v. Burwell, opinion here, the Supreme Court's latest ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, PPACA, etc.).  The Court saved one of the key provisions of the Act, 6-3, in a statutory interpretation case.  Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, writing for himself, and Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer. 

Whatever you think of the ACA, this is a good opinion to read because it explains in simple terms how the law works, why it was designed the way it was, and what the dispute was in King v. Burwell.   

Here's the overview of the Act in the Court's words. I insert emphasis:

First, the Act adopts the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements. The Act provides that “each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual . . . market in a State must accept every . . . individual in the State that applies for such coverage.” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–1(a). The Act also bars insurers from charging higher premiums on the basis of a person’s health. §300gg.

Second, the Act generally requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or make a payment to the IRS. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. Congress recognized that, without an incentive, “many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care.” 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(I). So Congress adopted a coverage requirement to “minimize this adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums.” Ibid. In Congress’s view, that coverage requirement was “essential to creating effective health insurance markets.” Ibid. Congress also provided an exemption from the coverage requirement for anyone who has to spend more than eight percent of his income on health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §§5000A(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(B)(ii).

Third, the Act seeks to make insurance more affordable by giving refundable tax credits to individuals with household incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. §36B. Individuals who meet the Act’s requirements may purchase insurance with the tax credits, which are provided in advance directly to the individual’s insurer. 42 U. S. C. §§18081, 18082.

So, there are three principal components to the ACA that work closely together:

Congress found that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements would not work without the coverage requirement. §18091(2)(I). And the coverage requirement would not work without the tax credits. The reason is that, without the tax credits, the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of income for a large number of individuals, which would exempt them from the coverage requirement.

Next, the ACA created the system of "exchanges" where consumers could shop for and buy the insurance:

In addition to those three reforms, the Act requires the creation of an “Exchange” in each State where people can shop for insurance, usually online. 42 U. S. C. §18031(b)(1). An Exchange may be created in one of two ways. First, the Act provides that “[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.” Ibid. Second, if a State nonetheless chooses not to establish its own Exchange, the Act provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1).

Now you know just about everything you might want to know about the 2000 page law.  The Supreme Court already upheld the law a couple of years ago.  So, what was the issue in King v. Burwell?  Glad you asked:

The issue in this case is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange rather than a State Exchange. The Act initially provides that tax credits “shall be allowed” for any “applicable taxpayer.” 26 U. S. C. §36B(a). The Act then provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [hereinafter 42 U. S. C. §18031].” 26 U. S. C. §§36B(b)–(c) (emphasis added).

So, some states have their own exchanges for insurance shoppers, such as "Covered California" here in the Golden State.  Other states rely on the federal exchange.   The ACA's tax credit language, though, says that the law's tax credits depend on the taxpayer's membership in an "Exchange established by the state."  Does that include the federal exchange?

Yes, said the IRS.  The IRS issued a regulation in which it said that an "Exchange established by the State" would include the federal exchange (presumably because the state decided to rely on the federal exchange as its "established" Exchange.)

The Court, though, did not defer to the IRS's interpretation. Rather, the Court held that the statute itself authorized the tax credits regardless of whether the taxpayer purchased insurance on a state or federal exchange.  To do so, the Court's majority engages in a lengthy analysis and explanation of why a federal exchange counts as a state exchange.  It's in the opinion, and you may almost be convinced.  So much for calling balls and strikes, CJ.    Anyway:

The upshot of all this is the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 that it establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary to establish “such Exchange.” §18041. And by using the words “such Exchange,” the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same. But State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges—one type of Exchange would help make insurance more afford- able by providing billions of dollars to the States’ citizens; the other type of Exchange would not.

By the way, if you think I'm cynical, you're right. But the Court sort of acknowledged that it was doing some gymnastics to save the law:

Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

And (emphasis mine):

Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpretation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 83 (1939). For the reasons we have given, however, such reliance is appropriate in this case, and leads us to conclude that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.

***

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.  Justice Scalia explains that this decision has little to do with statutory construction or the Court's role:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on a [federal exchange] gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

* * *

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.  * * * *  

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. 

And it was, 6-3.